Equities

Special Report

Feature Through the past five years, the global long bond yield has tried to surpass 2.5 percent on three occasions – once in 2015, twice in 2018. But it has failed (Feature Chart). The global long bond yield’s five-year struggle to break through 2.5 percent convinces us that the so-called ‘neutral’ rate of interest is now extremely low, indeed zero in real terms. This is a very high conviction view though, to be clear, not every BCA strategist may necessarily concur. Feature ChartSince 2015, The Global Long Bond Yield Has Struggled To Surpass 2.5 Percent The neutral rate of interest is the interest rate at which monetary policy is neither accommodative nor restrictive, the interest rate consistent with the economy maintaining full employment while keeping inflation constant. That much is generally accepted. Here’s where we differ from the conventional thinking: what is setting the neutral rate now is not the economy’s direct sensitivity to the interest rate via rate sensitive sectors such as mortgage lending or home construction: rather, it is the economy’s indirect sensitivity to the interest rate via its impact on equities and other so-called ‘risky’ assets. This Special Report challenges the conventional wisdom on the neutral rate on three specific points: The neutral rate is based on the bond yield, not on the policy interest rate. The neutral rate is global, not European or region specific. The neutral rate is nominal, not real. The Neutral Rate Is Based On The Bond Yield, Not On The Policy Interest Rate The $400 trillion combined value of equities, corporate bonds, real estate and other risky assets dwarfs the $80 trillion global economy by five to one. These risky assets are long-duration assets, because their cash flows extend into the distant future. Hence, the market calibrates the expected return available on these risky assets from the supposedly less risky return available from long-duration bonds – the bond yield – plus a ‘risk premium’. Now comes the part of the story that is not well understood, even by central bankers, because it derives from recent advances outside their field of expertise. Years of research in behavioural finance conclude that the measure that best encapsulates our perception of an investment’s risk is not its volatility but its negative asymmetry: the potential largest loss as a multiple of the potential largest gain (Chart I-2). The $400 trillion combined value of equities, corporate bonds, real estate and other risky assets dwarfs the $80 trillion global economy by five to one. Crucially, when the bond yield gets low, the proximity of its lower bound dramatically reduces the potential for price gains while leaving open the potential for large losses. This sudden onset of negative asymmetry means that bonds are no longer less risky than equities or other risky assets (Chart I-3). So risky assets no longer need to deliver a higher expected return than bonds (Chart I-4). Chart I-5Equities Offer Diversification Benefits Too! Some people counter that bonds offer investors a diversification benefit and, because of this, investors still need a higher return from equities. This argument is wrong. Just as bonds can protect equity investors, equities can protect bond investors during vicious sell-offs in the bond market – such as after Trump’s shock victory in 2016 (Chart I-5). So we could equally argue that equities require the lower return. In fact, at a low bond yield, with the same negative asymmetry and diversification properties, both equities and bonds must offer the same prospective return.   The upshot is that once the bond yield gets low and stays low, equity (and other risky asset) returns collapse to the feeble return offered by bonds with no additional ‘risk premium’ giving the valuation of $400 trillion of assets an exponential uplift (Chart I-6). The unfortunate corollary is that if the bond yield was no longer low, the valuation of $400 trillion of assets would suffer an exponential decline. And the consequent deterioration in financial conditions would send a chill wind through the global economy. Theoretically and empirically, the hyper-sensitivity of equity valuations to bond yields is greatest when the 10-year bond yield is in the 2-3 percent range. But which 10-year bond yield?1  Chart I-6Equities Are Now Priced To Generate A Feeble Long-Term Return The Neutral Rate Is Global, Not European Or Region Specific The question: ‘will European equities go up or down?’ is essentially the same as ‘will U.S. equities go up or down?’ or ‘will Chinese equities go up or down?’ albeit the size of the moves can be quite different. The same applies to mainstream bond markets; in directional terms, bonds move together. Chart I-7The Global 10-Year Yield Is The Average Of The Euro Area, U.S., And China Given this tight directional integration of global capital markets – and to some extent economies too – asset allocators make the asset class choice between equities and bonds their primary decision, and the regional allocation the subsidiary decision. It follows that the point of hyper-sensitivity of equity valuations, be it in Europe or any other region, is when the global 10-year bond yield is in the 2-3 percent range. What is the global 10-year bond yield? Previously, we defined it in terms of the German bund, U.S. T-bond, and JGB. But we now have an even better definition: it is the simple average of the 10-year yields in the world’s three major economies; the euro area, U.S., and China (Chart I-7).2  Given this yield’s five year struggle to surpass 2.5 percent, we can say that the ‘neutral’ rate, at which tighter financial conditions do not threaten any major economy, might be somewhere below this recent empirical limit, at around 2 percent. The Neutral Rate Is Nominal, Not Real Investors always think about the negative asymmetry of returns in nominal terms. This is because the losses they fear tend to be too short and too sharp for the real return to be meaningfully different from the nominal return.3 It follows that the aforementioned hyper-sensitivity of equity valuations is when the nominal bond yield is in the 2-3 percent range, resulting in a neutral nominal rate which might be 2 percent (Chart I-8). But if inflation is also running fairly close to 2 percent, as it is in the major economies, the upshot is that the neutral real rate of interest is zero.  What Does All Of This Mean? To sum up, a decade of ultra-loose monetary policy has fostered an addiction to – or at least a dependency on – low bond yields (Chart I-9). But the dependency is not of the rate sensitive sectors in the economy per se, rather it is of the rich valuation of risky assets whose worth dwarfs the global economy by five to one (Chart I-10). Gradually, this dependency should diminish as economic and profit growth improves valuations, but this will take time. Chart I-9A Decade Of Ultra-Loose Monetary Policy... Chart I-10...Has Made The Rich Valuation Of Risky Assets Dependent On Low Bond Yields In the meantime, the integration of global capital markets means that the valuation cue for European – and all regional – stock markets now comes from the global 10-year bond yield. Given its recent decline to slightly below neutral, stock markets are unlikely to free fall. A decade of ultra-loose monetary policy has fostered an addiction to – or at least a dependency on – low bond yields. That said, the aggregate market is likely to be in a sideways structural pattern, as it has been for the past eighteen months, and the big opportunities will continue to come from sector rotation: in the second half of the year switch out of economically sensitives such as industrials, and into defensives such as healthcare. A final point is that any decline in the global bond yield to below neutral will come disproportionately from higher yielding bond markets. This will underpin the lower yielding major currencies such as the euro. But our first choice for the second half of the year remains the Japanese yen. Fractal Trading System* This week, we see an excellent opportunity to short Russia’s recent strong outperformance versus Japan. The recommended trade is short MOEX versus Nikkei225 with a profit target of 5 percent and symmetrical stop-loss. In other trades, short WTI crude versus LMEX achieved its profit target. Against this, short the French OAT reached its stop-loss. This leaves three open positions. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment’s fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-11 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Consider what happens to valuations when bond yields decline from 4% to 2%. At a 4% bond yield, equities possess significantly more negative asymmetry than 10-year bonds. So investors will demand a comparatively higher return from equities, let’s say 8% a year. Whereas, at a 2% bond yield, equities and 10-year bonds possess the same negative asymmetry. So investors will demand the same return from equities as they can get from bonds, 2% a year. At the lower bond yield, the bond must deliver 2% a year less for ten years compared to previously, meaning its price must rise by 22%. But equities must deliver 6% a year less for ten years, so the equity market must surge by 80%. 2 We define the global 10-year bond yield as the simple average of the three 10-year bond yields in the euro area, U.S., and China, where the 10-year bond yield in the euro area is the issue-weighted average of the euro area’s individual 10-year bond yields. 3 For example, if bonds had a countertrend correction of 10% in a month when the economy was suffering severe deflation of 10% (per annum), it would still equate to a 9% loss in real terms! Fractal Trading System Recommendations Asset Allocation Equity Regional and Country Allocation Equity Sector Allocation Bond and Interest Rate Allocation Currency and Other Allocation Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - ##br##Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch -##br## Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch -##br## Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - ##br##Interest Rate Expectations  

Underweight High-Conviction Late Friday night news broke that the DOJ was working on an antitrust investigation into Alphabet Inc., parent of GOOGL/GOOG, and on Monday, according to the Wall Street Journal, the “FTC got jurisdiction for a possible Facebook Inc. antitrust investigation”. We first co-authored a Special Report with our sister Geopolitical Strategy Service last August titled “Is The Stock Rally Long In The FAANG?” and warned investors that it was a matter of when, not if, that the U.S. government would clamp down on these monopolies that enjoy record profits and never seen before profit margins (panels 3 and 5). Then in early December, we cautioned investors to specifically avoid the S&P interactive media & services index (dominated by GOOGL & FB) as our conclusion was that both antitrust (particularly in the case of Alphabet Inc.) and privacy regulation (particularly in the case of Facebook Inc.) added significant risk to these near monopolies at a time when calls for legislating both had dramatically amplified. Bottom Line: Looming privacy regulation and news of an antitrust investigation into Alphabet Inc. underscore that more pain lies ahead for the S&P interactive media & services index. We reiterate our high-conviction underweight. The ticker symbols of the stocks in this index are: S5INMS – GOOGL, GOOG, FB, TWTR and TRIP.        

While the media has zeroed in on the newly announced tariffs on Mexico late last week, tariffs on Indian imports and the narrowly avoided Australia trade war front barely made the news. This heightened policy uncertainty has taken investors aback. Worrisomely, the recent May update of the “Baker, Bloom, and Davis” categorical trade policy uncertainty index surged, which bodes ill for the overall market (trade policy uncertainty shown inverted, top panel). Similarly, we updated the article count that mention “trade war” using Bloomberg data and the message is similar: the opening up of new trade war fronts will continue to weigh on the broad market (trade war article count shown inverted, bottom panel). Bottom Line: Refrain from trying to catch a falling knife, a tactically cautious equity market stance is still warranted.

Special Report

Highlights The odds of universal health care legislation being enacted in the U.S. by 2022 are about 10%-15%. Former Vice President Joe Biden is the most likely Democratic candidate in 2020, but the alternative is most likely a progressive candidate seeking universal health care. Trump is slightly favored to win in 2020, but a Trump loss is likely to translate into full Democratic control of the U.S. government, making ambitious legislation more likely to pass Congress. An overweight portfolio allocation in the S&P health care index is a sensible and defensive move. Fear selling in health care stocks could easily return but would create an exploitable trading opportunity at this late stage of the cycle. We are executing the upgrade of the S&P health care index via an upgrade of the S&P health care equipment index, which has seen a material valuation de-rating at the same time as profits are expanding, to overweight. Feature Will The Democrats Win? Can They Pass Universal Health Care? “Medicare for All,” or government-led universal health care in the United States, is less likely to become the law of the land by 2022 than the market expects. We put the probability at around 10%-15%. Here’s why. The industry faces only two certainties: Americans are getting older and the federal government is increasing its involvement. The former is a secular driver for health care demand. The latter is an inference drawn from the fact that the Republican Party failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, even when it had full control of government. It is very unlikely that the Republicans will get another chance at repeal. It is also very unlikely that the public will tolerate the current status quo forever. The result is that the U.S. will eventually end up with a restored Obamacare or an altogether new system with a greater government role. The Republican failure to repeal was not idiosyncratic – it was not based on the fact that the late Senator John McCain, who cast the decisive vote on July 27, 2017, had been diagnosed with brain cancer earlier that year. Rather, it was structural – the repeal failed because (1) it is always extremely difficult to remove an entitlement once it has been given to voters and (2) a slim majority of Americans approved of Obamacare – and still do (Chart 1). Republicans went on to dismantle aspects of Obamacare, including the problematic “individual mandate.” But they did so without replacing it. The result was a severe electoral defeat in the 2018 midterm elections, despite a huge drop in the unemployment rate (Chart 2) – which matters directly in a country where 49% get their health insurance through their employer. Health care was the single most important issue driving people to vote against the ruling party in November 2018, judging by both pre-election polls and exit polls (Charts 3 & 4). Chart 2Low Unemployment Has Not Solved Health Care Woes The need for reform is manifest. It is widely known that the U.S. spends more than other countries on health care (Chart 5) and yet achieves worse results: preventable mortality is higher than in other countries that spend less (Chart 6). Democrats have tried to overhaul the system since 1993. Even President Trump is seeking to cap prescription drug prices and maintain the Obamacare requirement that health care insurers accept customers with “pre-existing conditions.” Uncertainty has risen since the Republicans’ midterm defeat, which increases, or is seen as increasing, the odds of a Democratic victory in 2020. Such a victory would mark the third time in 12 years that American policy would witness a 180-degree reversal – and it would have a major impact on the health sector (Chart 7). Chart 7The Sector's Response To Major Political Events In truth Trump is still favored to win in 2020, on the back of the incumbent advantage – as long as the economy holds up. But with a chronically weak approval rating, and narrow 2016 margins of victory and the aforementioned midterm losses in key swing states, his odds of reelection are probably not much better than 55%. Meanwhile the Democrats are swinging to the left and may not settle simply for restoring Obamacare. Left-wing or “progressive” candidates for the Democratic nomination are polling in line with traditional center-left candidates (Chart 8), which is highly unusual (even compared with the 2007-08 race). Candidates are crowding onto the democratic socialist bandwagon in the wake of Bernie Sanders’s formidable challenge to Hillary Clinton and her subsequent loss to Trump. Could a progressive candidate win the nomination? Certainly. Former Vice President Joe Biden leads the pack at this early stage in the nomination process. He would seek to restore and build upon Obamacare. The second-ranked candidate is Sanders, whose initial proposal to create Medicare for All has transformed the national debate. Following Sanders are Senators Kamala Harris, who co-sponsored the latest version of the bill with Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren, an outspoken progressive who is also in favor of universal health care (Chart 9). Sanders does have a path to winning the nomination, as the leading progressive candidate at a time when the party is becoming more progressive. He performs better than Biden in head-to-head polls against Trump in the key battleground states (Chart 10). Strategic voters will have trouble convincing fellow Democrats that they should not vote for him because he is unelectable: he has a clear electoral path to the White House via Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, where he performed well in 2016 and polls well today. If Sanders has a chance, then Medicare for All has a chance. Because it is extremely difficult to unseat an incumbent president, a victory over Trump in 2020 is only likely to occur if there is a surge in voter turnout and Democratic Party support among (1) blue-collar workers who abandoned the Democrats for Trump in 2016, or (2) young voters, women, or minorities. Any such surge would also enable the Democrats to defend their senate seats while picking up Arizona, Colorado, and Maine, which are statewide elections that will be affected by the headline presidential race. And if the Democrats win 50 seats, they would get a majority in the senate, as the vice president would break any tie. With a majority, Senate Democrats could use the “nuclear option” to bypass the filibuster and drive through their priority legislation.1 This would set a new precedent with far-reaching consequences. But recent majority leaders have already begun eroding the filibuster and there is no hard constraint preventing a ruling party from removing it entirely. It is perfectly possible, and all the more likely if the nation sweeps a progressive candidate to power in a wave of enthusiasm for dramatic changes like universal health care. In other words, any victory against Trump is likely to entail full Democratic control of government. In this scenario, Democrats would have a very good chance of passing a major piece of legislation. Hence, if a progressive wins the nomination, and makes Medicare for All the policy priority, there is at least a 50/50 chance it will pass, probably more like 60%. The catch is that a progressive may not win the nomination. There is not decisive evidence that Americans really want Medicare for All. First, Americans tend to view their own health costs as “reasonable” (Chart 11). They are not, as a whole, clamoring for a single-payer system. Second, while Americans say they support Medicare for All, that support evaporates when they learn about the various policies that it would necessitate, such as eliminating private health insurance and raising taxes (Chart 12). Third, most Democrats are closer to Biden’s position than Sanders’s – they want to fix Obamacare rather than revolutionize the system (Chart 13). Fourth, Colorado tried to pass its own version of Medicare for All on the state level in 2016. The bill’s advocates were handed a 79% defeat by voters. Colorado is a swing state so it is not an irrelevant experiment. Fifth, independents are not shifting to the left in a way that would validate the sharp leftward shift within the Democratic Party (Chart 14). Nominating Sanders or another progressive is more likely to lead to a loss in the general election than it is to ensure that universal health care gets passed.   Chart 14Independents Not Swinging Dramatically To The Left A simple back-of-the-envelope exercise suggests that odds of universal health care by 2022 are about 10%-15%. Nevertheless, we attempt a conservative, back-of-the-envelope method for estimating the probability of passage. It runs like this: There is a 50% chance a progressive wins the Democratic nomination. We assume that if Biden wins it is because Democratic voters prefer a restitution of Obamacare. There is a 45% chance that Trump loses the presidential election. We assume that for the Democrats to unseat an incumbent is difficult enough that they will also win the Senate. Under these circumstances, there is a 50%-60% chance that universal health care legislation passes – even though it will be very difficult to get it over the line. (Note that the ACA passed very narrowly at a time when the Democrats had a huge tailwind due to voters’ disenchantment after the global financial crisis). With these assumptions, the conditional probability of passage is around 13.5% (0.5 x 0.45 x 0.6 = 0.135) These odds can be moderated by boosting Trump to a 69% chance of reelection (the historical average for sitting presidents), which brings down the odds of ultimate passage to 9%. Note, however, that the bond market is pricing a 27% probability of a recession 12 months from now (Chart 15). If there is a recession, then President Trump is virtually assured to lose reelection and the Democratic victor will have a strong tailwind of public support. This will increase the chance that universal health care passes to 80%. (We still assume in this case that Biden would stick with Obamacare as he would not be committed to Medicare for All and it is not an economic stimulus package). The conditional probability would become 0.5 x 0.27 x 0.8 = 11%. Chart 15Probability Of Recession Is Rising NY Fed's Yield Curve Model Suggests That The Probability Of A Recession Is Still Quite Low In other words, whether we upgrade Trump’s chances of winning or we upgrade the chances of a recession that kicks him out of office, the odds are roughly the same at 9%-11%. And they could be a bit higher at 14%. Medicare for All has a chance of becoming law, although it is not all that great. Bottom Line: With fairly conservative assumptions the odds range from 10%-15%. that the U.S. could legislate a sweeping overhaul of the health care system and new social entitlement by 2022. This is a serious risk to the industry. Health care equities have recovered the losses suffered since Sanders’s latest push for Medicare for All, which means that it is not pricing in a high probability of passage at present. Additional policy-related selloffs are likely between now and the spring of 2020, if and when the odds increase of Sanders (or another progressive) winning the Democratic nomination. Buy Into Health Care Weakness Regardless of the likelihood of passage, the faintest hint of the winds of change has brought about significant price changes in the relevant equities. In the lead up to the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Hillary Clinton, a health care reformer (though importantly NOT a Medicare for All advocate) was polling well ahead of Donald Trump. Health care stocks underperformed the broad market in anticipation of potential reforms resulting from a Clinton win (Chart 16). Two years after Donald Trump’s election, both S&P health care equipment and S&P managed health care have significantly outperformed with the effect most dramatic in the former. Chart 17 shows the reverse picture: a “blue wave” in the 2018 midterm elections was swiftly followed by the zenith for health care stocks as the market digested the implications of a Democratic House and the resulting higher probability of a similar sweep in 2020 in the Senate and executive branch. Chart 16Election Fear Creates Buying Opportunities... Chart 17...And History Appears To Be Repeating Itself Furthermore, our prior research shows that S&P health care has been the top performer in the last equity market surge to take place between the peak of the ISM manufacturing composite index and the beginning of the subsequent recession.2 This research was confirmed in a report last month analyzing sector returns after a Fed loosening cycle begins. The S&P health care index has historically outperformed from six months before a rate cut all the way to two years after easing policy.3#fn_3 As a reminder, the market has now priced in two rate cuts over the next year. We recommend an overweight position for the broad S&P 500 health care index as well as for health care equipment. BCA’s U.S. Equity Strategy has already moved to an overweight recommendation on the S&P managed health care index, a move that has netted our portfolio 12.4% of alpha. Today U.S. Equity Strategy is raising our recommendations on both the S&P health care equipment and, more importantly, the broad S&P health care index from neutral to overweight. Further, considering U.S. Equity Strategy’s recent portfolio changes, namely moving the S&P materials index to neutral, this upgrade of S&P health care to overweight moves our cyclicals vs. defensives style preference from overweight cyclicals to neutral. This move to the sidelines on the cyclical/defensive portfolio bent has netted modest gains of 2% since its October 2, 2017 inception. Equipping The World’s Hospitals Our upgrade of S&P health care equipment to overweight is not contingent upon earnings outperformance. Rather, it is a combination of overwrought investors having created a buying opportunity, combined with health care’s historic outperformance at the end of the business cycle. Nevertheless, an examination of the sector’s macro environment is revealing. The health care equipment index has recently completed an inventory clear-out cycle, as evidenced both by a slingshot rebound in the shipments-to-inventories ratio (second panel, Chart 18) and a recovery in industry pricing power (bottom panel, Chart 18). This is remarkable in the context of the deceleration in equipment fixed-investment growth that the industry has faced since reaching decade-highs in 2017 (third panel, Chart 18). The upshot is that steady pricing and resilient volume growth should deliver positive top-line growth. The margin picture has also dramatically improved: industrial production has been surging for the past year while hours worked have remained tepid (second and third panels, Chart 19). The combination has driven our productivity proxy to a multi-year high where it has recently diverged from the relative stock price (bottom panel, Chart 19). Chart 18Inventories Have Cleared Chart 19Productivity Is Soaring This underpins our thesis that health care stocks in general and health care equipment stocks in particular have recently suffered based on fear, not fundamentals, amidst a stable domestic demand environment and rosy profit picture. The export channel is at least as important to the S&P health care equipment index as the domestic demand environment. In fact, roughly 60% of sector revenues are generated outside the United States. The news on this front is encouraging. Europe, the other key market for domestically-manufactured health care equipment, has lately seen a pickup in new orders and coupled with the loss of momentum in the trade-weighted U.S. dollar signal that future export growth will remain upbeat (trade-weighted U.S. dollar shown inverted and advanced, bottom panel, Chart 20). The global PMI has historically led exports. While this series has turned down, it has been diverging from export growth for the past year. We believe this is a function of the early stages of a secular trend in health care equipment: the expansion of the EM safety net with health care at its core. The same demographic trend that has been driving the explosion of health care spending in the DM for the last 20 years is rapidly impacting the EM, namely an aging population. The UN projects that the share of the population aged 65 and older in the EMs will rise from roughly 7% this year to 16% in 2060, while population growth slows to below the replacement rate, a tectonic shift in the demographic landscape (Chart 21). Meanwhile, according to IMF data, EM health care spending is approximately 5% of GDP. By contrast, the DMs stand in excess of 14%. Chart 20The Export Valve Is Wide Open A catch-up phase looms, driven by both demographics and an overall global harmonization of standard of care, resulting in a secular outperformance of internationally geared health care equipment manufacturers’ earnings. This bodes well for U.S. health care equipment providers who are the technology leaders and often the only source for equipping hospitals/clinics around the globe. Notwithstanding the bright outlook, fear selling in the S&P health care equipment index has driven a reversal in the two-year valuation rerating that the index has undergone (bottom panel, Chart 22). With the valuation retreating back to its historical range, our main concern that the index is too expensive has eroded. Further, the valuation decline is coming at a time when forward earnings growth has come out of hiding and is now slated to materially outgrow the broad market (middle panel, Chart 22). Chart 22Valuations Have Returned To Earth Bottom Line: Something has to give in this equation and macro tailwinds suggest that a valuation re-rating phase looms. Accordingly, we are moving to an overweight recommendation on the S&P health care equipment index. This move pushes our S&P health care index to an above benchmark allocation and also moves our cyclical vs. defensive preference back to neutral. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P health care equipment index are: BLBG: S5HCEP – ABT, MDT, DHR, BDX, SYK, ISRG, BSX, BAX, EW, ZBH, IDXX, RMD, TFX, HOLX, ABMD, VAR. BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy echoes the tenor of these recommendations and is going long the S&P 500 health care index and the health care equipment index versus the broad market. A Word On Pharma Between 1980 and 2000, pharma earnings expanded at a record clip, taking sector share prices into the stratosphere (top panel, Chart 23). Since the zenith in the early 2000’s, margins have been continually under pressure as R&D costs have outpaced volume gains (second panel, Chart 23). However, earnings growth has continued mostly uninterrupted as the industry has raised drug prices. Since 2015, however, price increases have flat lined and now they move at the same pace as overall inflation, though the current convoluted system keeps pricing mostly opaque (bottom panel, Chart 23). We think this is the new normal. The thesis of this report revolves upon a blue vs. red probability outcome. However, as noted, both parties seem united in the fight against high drug costs and Republicans under President Trump are not averse to government intervention to drive down prices. As such, we expect the pharma pricing headwinds to remain a secular trend, driven by outrage from both sides of the aisle and even universal coverage is not enough to bear the pressure. Accordingly, we reiterate our underweight recommendation. Chart 23Pharma Remains Underweight Conclusion Universal health care will be negative for the U.S. budget deficit but positive for economic growth. As for the macroeconomic impact of universal health care, it is complex to assess because much would depend on the extent of any reduction in private health-related sectors. Almost certainly, the U.S. would adopt a parallel system where private health care remains available, but there inevitably would be some job losses in the insurance sector. And drug companies would face downward pressure on pricing. On the other hand, the marked increase in government spending would be stimulative. And we do not see future American administrations exercising a heretofore unknown fiscal discipline once such a new entitlement is established. Many families would enjoy a reduction in health care costs. Overall, it should be positive for economic growth.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Chris Bowes, Associate Editor U.S. Equity Strategy ChrisB@bcaresearch.com Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      The filibuster is a means of prolonging debate and obstructing a vote. It can be defeated if 60/100 senators vote to move to end debate (“cloture”). It effectively ensures that the three-fifths majority is the standard majority needed to pass legislation in the senate. However, it is possible for the senate majority leader, backed with a simple majority, to alter the senate rules and remove the filibuster, so legislation can be passed with a simple majority. But it would be an aggressive move and a historic precedent. 2      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Portfolio Positioning For A Late Cycle Surge” dated May 22, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Sector Performance And Fed Loosening Cycles: A Historical Roadmap” dated May 6, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.   Current Recommendations

Feature Markets have turned jittery in the past month. Global growth data have deteriorated further (Chart 1), with Korean exports, the German manufacturing PMI, and even U.S. industrial production weak. Moreover, trade negotiations between the U.S. and China appear to have broken down, with China threatening to retaliate against U.S. sanctions on Huawei by blocking sales of rare earths, and refusing to negotiate further unless the U.S. eases tariffs. BCA’s Geopolitical Strategists now give only a 40% probability of a trade deal by the time of the G20 summit at the end of June (Table 1). As a result, BCA alerted clients on 10 May to the risk of a further short-term 5% correction in global equities.1 Recommended Allocation Chart 1Worrying Signs? Table 1Chances Of A Trade Deal Fading Fast What is essentially behind the global slowdown, especially outside the U.S., is that both China and the U.S. last year were tightening monetary policy – China by slowing credit growth, the U.S. via Fed hikes. The U.S. economy was robust enough to withstand this, but economies in Europe, Asia, and Emerging Markets were not (Chart 2). The question now is whether the Chinese authorities and the Fed will come to the rescue and add stimulus that will cause a recovery in global growth. China has already triggered a rebound in credit growth since January (Chart 3). Chart 2U.S. Holding Up Better Than Elsewhere Chart 3China Stimulus Has Only Just Begun This has not come through clearly in Chinese – and other countries’ – activity data yet, partly because there is usually a lag of 3-12 months before this happens, and partly because Chinese authorities seemingly eased back somewhat on the gas pedal in April given rising expectations of a trade deal. But, judging by previous episodes such as 2009 and 2016, the Chinese will stimulate now based on the worst-case scenario. The risk is more that they overdo the stimulus than that they fail to do enough. Yes, China is worried about its excess debt situation. But this year they will prioritize growth – not least because of some sensitive anniversaries in the months ahead (for example, the 70th anniversary of the People’s Republic on October 1), and because the government is falling behind on its promise to double per capita real income between 2010 and 2020 (Chart 4). Chart 4Chinese Communist Party Needs To Prioritize Growth Chart 5U.S. Consumers Look In Fine State     In the U.S., consumption is likely to continue to buoy the economy. Wages are growing 3.2% a year and set to accelerate further, and consumer confidence is close to a 50-year high (Chart 5). It is easy to exaggerate the impact of even an all-out trade war. For China, exports to the U.S. are only 3.4% of GDP. A hit to this could easily be offset by stimulus leading to greater capital expenditure. For the U.S, most academic studies show that the impact of tariffs will largely be passed on to the consumer via higher prices.2 But even if the U.S. imposes 25% tariffs on all Chinese exports and all is passed on to the consumer with no substitutions for goods from other countries the impact, about $130 billion, would represent only 1% of total U.S. consumption. The question now is whether the Chinese authorities and the Fed will come to the rescue and add stimulus that will cause a recovery in global growth. But if China will bail out the global economy, we are not so convinced that the Fed will cut rates any time soon. The market has priced in two Fed rate cuts over the next 12 months (Chart 6). But we agree with comments from Fed officials that recent softness in inflation is transitory. For example, financial services inflation (mostly comprising financial advisor fees, linked to assets under management, and therefore very sensitive to the stock market) alone has deducted 0.4 percentage points from core PCE inflation over the past six months (Chart 7). The trimmed mean PCE (which cuts out other volatile items besides energy and food, which are excluded from the commonly used core PCE measure) is close to 2% and continues to drift up. Chart 6Will The Fed Really Cut Twice In 12 Months? Chart 7Soft Inflation Probably Is Transitory     Fed policy remains mildly accommodative: the current Fed Funds Rate is still two hikes below the neutral rate, as defined by the median terminal-rate dot in the FOMC’s Summary of Economic Projections (Chart 8). The market may be trying to push the Fed into cutting rates and could be disappointed if it does not. For now, we tend to agree with the Fed’s view that policy is about correct (Chart 9) but, if global growth does recover before the end of the year, one hike would be justified in early 2020 – before the upcoming Presidential election in November 2020 makes it less comfortable for the Fed to move. Chart 8Fed Policy Is Still Accommodative Chart 9Fed Doesn't Need To Move For Now     In this macro environment, we see global bond yields bottoming not far below their current (very depressed) levels, and equities eking out reasonable gains over the next 12 months. The risk of a global recession over the next year or so is not high, in our opinion. We, therefore, continue to recommend an overweight on global equities and underweight on bonds over the cyclical horizon.  We see global bond yields bottoming not far below their current (very depressed) levels, and equities eking out reasonable gains over the next 12 months. Fixed Income: Government bond yields have fallen sharply over the past eight months (by 110 basis points for the U.S. 10-year, for example) because of 1) falling inflation expectations, caused mostly by a weak oil price, 2) expectations of Fed rate cuts, 3) especially weak growth in Europe, which pulled German yields down to -20 basis points in May, and 4) global risk aversion which pushed asset allocators into government bonds, and lowered the term premium to near record low levels (Chart 10). If Brent crude rises to $80 a barrel this year as we forecast, the Fed does not cut rates, and European growth rebounds because of Chinese stimulus, we find it highly improbable that yields will fall much further. Ultimately, the global risk-free rate is driven by global growth (Chart 11). Investors are already positioned very aggressively for a further fall in yields (Chart 12). We would expect the U.S. 10-year yield to move back towards 3% over the next 12 months. We remain moderately positive on credit, which should also benefit from a growth rebound: U.S. high-yield spreads are still around 70 basis points for Ba-rated bonds, and 110 basis points for B-rated ones, above the levels at which they typically bottom in expansions; investment-grade bonds, though, have less room for spread contraction (Chart 13). Chart 10Term Premium Near Record Low Chart 11Global Rebound Would Push Up Yields   Chart 12Investors Very Long Duration Chart 13Credit Spreads Can Tighten Further     Equities:  We remain overweight U.S. equities, partly as a hedge against our overweight on the equity asset class, since the U.S. remains a relatively low beta market. Our call for the second half will be 1) when will Chinese stimulus start to boost growth disproportionately for commodity and capital-goods exporters, and 2) does that justify a shift out of the U.S. (which may be somewhat hurt short term by the Trade War) and into euro zone and Emerging Markets equities. Given the structural headwinds in both (the chronically weak banking system and political issues in Europe; high debt and lack of structural reforms in EM), we want clear evidence that the Chinese stimulus is working before making this call. We are likely to remain more cautious on Japan, even though it is a clear beneficiary of Chinese growth, because of the risk presented by the rise in the consumption tax in October: after previous such hikes, consumption not only slumped immediately afterwards but remained depressed (Chart 14). Chart 14Japan's Sales Tax Hike Is A Worry Chart 15Dollar Is A Counter-Cyclical Currency   Currencies:  Again, China is the key. The dollar is a counter-cyclical currency, and a pickup in global growth would weaken it (Chart 15). Any further easing by the ECB – for example, significantly easier terms on the next Targeted Longer-Term Refinancing Operations (TLTRO) – might actually be positive for the euro since it would augur stronger growth in the euro area. Moreover, long dollar is a clear consensus view, with very skewed market positioning (Chart 16). Also, on a fundamental basis, compared to Purchasing Power Parity, the dollar is around 15% overvalued versus the euro and 11% versus the yen. Chart 17Industrial Metals Driven By China Too Commodities: Industrial metals prices have generally been weak in recent months with copper, for example, falling by 10% since mid-April. It will require a sustained rebound in Chinese infrastructure spending to push prices back up (Chart 17). Oil continues to be driven by supply-side factors, not demand. With OPEC discipline holding, Iran sanctions about to be reimposed, political turmoil in Libya and Venezuela, BCA’s energy strategists continue to see inventories drawing down this year, and therefore forecast Brent crude to reach $80 during 2019 (Chart 18). Chart 18Oil Supply Remains Tight Garry Evans Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1       Please see Global Investment Strategy, Special Report, “Stay Cyclically Overweight Global Equities, But Hedge Near-Term Downside Risks From An Escalation Of A Trade War,” dated May 10, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 2      Please see, for example, Mary Amiti, Sebastian Heise, and Noah Kwicklis, “The Impact of Import Tariffs on U.S. Domestic Prices,” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Liberty Street Economics, dated 4 January 2019. Recommended Asset Allocation  

Feature The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of May 31, 2019.  The quant model has not made significant changes in the major country allocations, but has further increased Australia’s overweight after the upgrade in the previous month, as shown in Table 1.  Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1,  2 and  3, the overall model outperformed the MSCI World benchmark by 17 bps in May, largely from a 17 bps of outperformance from the Level 1 model, as the Level 2 model only eked out 1 bp of outperformance.  Directionally, five out of the 12 choices generated positive alpha. The largest contributions to the outperformance in May came from the overweight in Switzerland and Australia, as well as the underweight in the U.S.  Since going live, the overall model has outperformed by 170 bps, with a 350 bps of outperformance by Level 2 model, and an 11bps of outperformance from Level 1. Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD %) Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1)   Please see also the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see Special Report, “Global Equity Allocation: Introducing The Developed Markets Country Allocation Model,” dated January 29, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered too in making overall recommendations. Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Model (Chart 4) is updated as of May 31, 2019. Chart 4Overall Model Performance Table 3Model’s Performance (March 1, 2019 - Current) Table 4Current Model Allocations       The model’s relative tilts between cyclicals and defensives have changed compared to last month. On the backdrop of weaker global growth, the model has become positive on Consumer Staples and upgraded the sector. This was driven by both the momentum and growth components. This in turn decreases the overweight allocations to Industrials and Utilities, the model’s two overweights, and increases the underweight allocation to the eight remaining sectors. The valuation component remains muted across all sectors. Our expectations are that global growth bottoms in the back end of the year. However, the hard data has not fully materialized yet. While escalated trade war tensions between the U.S. and China continue to put downward pressure on growth indicators, Chinese credit and fiscal stimulus, similar to that of 2009 and 2015, will more than likely put a floor under further downside. For more details on the model, please see the Special Report “Introducing the GAA Equity Sector Selection Model,” dated July 27, 2016, as well as the Sector Selection Model section in the Special Alert “GAA Quant Model Updates,” dated March 1, 2019 available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com Amr Hanafy, Research Associate amrh@bcaresearch.com

Special Report

We remain structurally overweight global equities, but hedged our long exposure on May 10th following what we regarded as an overly complacent reaction by investors to President Trump’s decision to further raise tariffs on Chinese imports. Last night’s announcement that the U.S. will increase tariffs on Mexican imports represents a further escalation of the trade war. About two-thirds of U.S.-Mexican cross-border trade is between the same companies. Higher tariffs and increased operating inefficiencies will eat into the profits of U.S.-listed firms. Accordingly, we are reducing the profit target on our short S&P 500 trade from 2711 to 2650.  Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy  peterb@bcaresearch.com